The Problem with Protesting

I was also there and I suppose it was a good thing I could not hear a damn thing that the speakers said. I agree that there was an uncomfortable presence of unwelcome vehemence. And when I checked for news coverage afterwards I was dismayed at the overwhelming right-wingness of the blogs that covered it. In New York I have found this too often to be the case though and I am getting uncomfortably used to it. It appears to be completely unacceptable to have liberal viewpoints and also diverge on issues like the Danish free speech. Thus, not many liberals at this “rally” or at anything that might wander from the party line. My friends sniffed me out as highly suspect for attending this.

I am happy to say that in this instance though I had a nice time because all I did was talk to a couple of rather nice people, like the father of Azi Paybarah who resigned from the NY Press over the cartoon issue.

I too was there, a veritable first for me (and a first for a great many of us.I was there to support Denmark for taking such enormous heat for a rather innocuous incident and while it may have been offensive to Muslims, that doesn’t make “us wrong”.
Nazis marching in Skokie was a crippling affront to the Jews, Imagine those Jews in Illinois and ascross the oceans that had the Nazi experience, having to see them march in full SS regalia, and see it – up close and personal, real personal.

Your depiction of peacful Muslims protests worldwide is a whitewash, hundreds of innocent infidels have been murdered, And in particular, Christians. 165 dead in Nigeria alone and it was orchestrated by the OIC and Iran. Do you really believe those Danish Flags suddenly appeared in all of those tiny bodegas in the middle of the desert,across ginormous lands, just like that? That was an act of war.

I for one, will not submit to dhimmitude on the most base issue of Freedom of Speech. Either you go down for what you believe in, or you go down because you didn’t go down for what you believed in.And I am going down for what I beleive in. And I stand by that even with death threats made to my blog.

Everybody’s read is different. That’s what makes horseracing. My only issue with your account was

British left-wing magazine the New Statesman ran a front cover with a Star of David standing on a British flag over the headline “A Kosher Conspiracy?” The cover was lambasted as anti-Semitic. An apology was demanded and given. But what if no apology had been forthcoming? What if magazines around the world reprinted that cover in defense of freedom of speech?

Well let me tell you, it does happen all the time. The most vile blood libel cartoons of Jews run all the time. And to your question, what would happen? Well you tell me, What does happen indeed? Jews Murdering muslims through the streets, Burning mosques, killing people.Never C’mon son, you are not being straight with yourself.

If you can, pick up Fallaci’s latest book, just out “The Force of Reason”
Good on ya, Pamela

I really understand your desire for a somewhat “noble” and free-of-politics protest, but it’s probably not going to happen. Everything is politics, whether you accept it or not. It doesn’t have to be, but unfortunately it is. There is a huge difference between the world of realities and the world of ideals.

I find this very interesting:

“Look at these people. Look what they do. They’re not like us. They’re animals. And they’re trying to take over our world.”

I cannot agree with this worldview.

The truth is that they *aren’t* like us, and they *do* try to take over our world. This is not a crazy right-wing concept, it is a *fact* that is being constantly proven by *their* actions and words. The fact that you cannot agree with this worldview is extremely telling and is the crux of the matter.

Events unfold regardless of our expectations and desires. Rarely do ideals and expectations meet in the real world. They sometimes do, and it’s wonderful, but mostly they don’t. I lost my “innocence” a while ago, not influenced by right-wing rethoric, but by facts. I didn’t loose my idealism, I just postponed it to allow myself to deal with unpleasant facts.

In other words, Englishman in New York, what you are saying is that your cultivated civility gives you the courage to bow on your knees before the barbarians about to behead you for not submitting to Jihad?

You are an intellectual giant amongst the passionate masses.

Sorry to have missed the Danish rally, I would have carried a sign saying:

Freedom for Speech! We will not be Allah-Freyed by Danish Imans!

Listen, if the day comes when I am harrassed by a gang of youthful jihadists for dishonoring Allah because my body can be seen then you will experience just how barbaric I will be forced to be.

Guys, you crack me up.

Do you think Hitch, the catalyst for these demonstrations, shares your balanced and rational views?

Having been an “American in Britian” for five years and having witnessed huge anti-war demonstrations with Islamofascists marching with the spaced out left-wingers who love them in Hyde Park, I was proud to attend the small pro-Denmark demo in NYC with people who actually work for a living and were not bused or just “out for a laugh”.

The smug cowards in the media were wrong not to cover a group of people standing in the cold trying to defend their very right to a free press. If you felt we were showing too much grit and determination in the face of fascism, TOO BAD. Having just toured Europe, most people there would be speaking Russian with a German accent if it was not for our brand of jingoism. I do not want my country to have to make a third bloody trip over to liberate and safe guard Europe again so I get concerned when I see a new stripe of fascism emerging and Europeans refusing to defend themselves…. IN TIME.

As the tolerate English used to tell me if I dared defend my country and President against smug attacks, “if you don’t like it here mate, F*** off back to the states.”
I didn’t like it, so I did. It was a good piece of advice. Cheers, mate

Rob,

World War Two started in 1939, America joined in late 1941. After the German’s overran Poland and France, Britain fought Germany alone for nearly two years. Thank God the USA came to help, because Britain had run itself into the ground defending itself and the world against facism by that time. And in the Cold War, the Socialist government of Britain joined that fight on the same side, built it’s own nuclear arsenal and housed a great deal of the US nuclear bombs. I’m not surprised people in the UK told you to f*** off, if you’re in the habit of re-writing history.

Secondly, it is actually possible to defend Denmark, free-speech, be in favour of the war in Iraq, be alive to the danger of Islamic fascism and also think that a Muslim protesting against these cartoons should not automatically be set fire to. There’s a word for this, and it’s NUANCE. And I think the lack of that is the problem EINY had with the protest, but hey, I just read what he had to say so what do I know.

“be alive to the danger of Islamic fascism and also think that a Muslim protesting against these cartoons should not automatically be set fire to.”

That’s putting words in peoples mouths. No one said anyone should set fire to Muslims. In fact, radical Muslims are the ones rioting all over the globe setting fire to buildings, destroying other people’s holy sites, and threatening to assassinate anyone who disagrees with them. That’s the kind of violent intimidation we were protesting. But I never heard anyone advocating it.

Another comment about the “tepid” rally. Maybe you thought it was “tepid” precisely because people were standing around talking to one another, in fact being nuanced, instead of chanting negative insulting slogans?

Were the rally anti-Muslim?

Englishman in NYC thought our rally for Denmark was too polarized, and he left early. He wrote a column about it in Metro New York. I don’t want to invalidate his experience, but I just don’t think it paints an…

“Look at these people. Look what they do. They’re not like us. They’re animals. And they’re trying to take over our world.”

That was never implied. I don’t beleive that. There is a radical faction of Islam that has taken the Muslim world hostage and intends to take the whole of the world with it as well.

Every act of submission (whether it’s the media’s fear of publishing the cartoons, Mayor Bloomberg’s fear of firing the chief Radical Islamic Imam of our prisons – terror’s new training ground), each act is another small victory for Islamofascism. Every time the line in the sand is moved, we move that much further away from the way of life we hold most dear.

There are many campaigns in this war.The cartoon jihad is just one of them.

Hang on? People didn’t really say that they wanted to set fire to Muslims? Forgive my hyperbole when trying to make a point, I merely got carried away.

Rob, your comparison of the UK to Israel is an interesting one and bears thinking about. If your English mates had a knee jerk reaction to it, maybe you should have got some other mates. Tony Blair was re-elected after taking the UK to war, so I’m sure there must be some of them out there who aren’t totally oppossed to your ideas.

Churchill was kicked out, if that’s what you call a democratic defeat, and he was kicked in again in 1951, and made a pretty appalling peace-time (such as it was) leader. I know the reasons why Attlee housed and built nuclear weapons, thanks. I was just pointing out that your picture of wishy-washy Europe ignoring the real dangers of totalitarianism and being rescued by the USA was both arrogant and wrong. Just as with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Britain does its military part admirably and yet the Brits are lumped in with every other backsliding, anti-American nation you can name. And they have huge anti-war demonstrations? What? There’s that nuance again.

Scribe: your post is anti-sense. If a muslim demonstrates without having seen the cartoons they could still have free will, and they could also be stupid.

I fear that this comment thread is deteriorating and fracturing and heading in all the usual directions. But at least we’re having a debate. Makes a nice change from the echo chamber don’t you think?

Pamela,

I said I thought there was a subtext to many of these arguments–over the cartoons and the so-called European intifada last summer–that went something like this:

“Look at these people. Look what they do. They’re not like us. They’re animals. And they’re trying to take over our world.”

I cannot agree with this worldview.

Now Pamela you say:

That was never implied. I don’t beleive that. There is a radical faction of Islam that has taken the Muslim world hostage and intends to take the whole of the world with it as well.

But whatdoiknow says:

The truth is that they *aren’t* like us, and they *do* try to take over our world. This is not a crazy right-wing concept, it is a *fact* that is being constantly proven by *their* actions and words. The fact that you cannot agree with this worldview is extremely telling and is the crux of the matter.

Pamela, does this mean we’re now on the same side?

“Look at these people. Look what they do. They’re not like us. They’re animals. And they’re trying to take over our world.”

I don’t have a problem with that statement. As long as it isn’t applied to all Muslims. And I’m not aware that anyone involved in this event did that. If they did, please let me know and I will stand corrected.

There certainly are people who do not act like us, who are not (or who do not think) like us, and who are basically animals. And yes, they are trying to take over the world. That isn’t prejudice, it’s clarity.

Asher, I agree. But I think the problem is that it is all too easily attributed to the wider Muslim community and to Islam itself. The line between clarity and hysteria seems, to me, to be quite thin.

pcm. I thought the rally was to show solidarity with Denmark. If I had known it was to defend the right to offend Muslims I certainly would not have shown up.

The same ones that give rise to every act of violence perpetrated by man. Or do you think Islam is a special case?

Apparently you can’t start a thought anymore in today’s world without a disclaimer.

pdberger, when I said the following

The truth is that they *aren’t* like us, and they *do* try to take over our world.

I obviously didn’t mean every single Muslim on the face of the Earth.

Do you understand, pdberger, or should I try it again? My words apply to a minority in the Muslim world. I suppose that you would agree that this minority is indeed not like us, and they would definitely like to take over our world.

I understand you reluctance in joining a demonstration where Islam is vilified. I wouldn’t do it either. I fully agree with your thoughts:

The line between clarity and hysteria seems, to me, to be quite thin.

You are somewhat guilty of the same sin though – all the critics are xenophobs, unless there is a disclaimer at the bottom of the page.

However, the fact that there is only a minority that is mean isn’t much comfort to me. Communism, nazism also grew from top to bottom, with a handful of crazed men eventually influencing their entire population. I suspect you know that in England over 50% of the Muslim population (I would have to look up the exact numbers) either supports or has “understanding” for the tube bombers. It looks like this radical minority isn’t all that minor anymore.

“Hang on? People didn’t really say that they wanted to set fire to Muslims? Forgive my hyperbole when trying to make a point, I merely got carried away.”

I wasn’t at any of the demonstrations. But I love a masterful display of irony. Getting carried away and using false hyperbole- hey, I’ve done it myself. But to do so while essentially complaining about others getting carried away and using false hyperbole! That is delightful! Thanks.

One other point: “Freedom of speech carries the responsibility to admit when you are wrong.” Dwell on that for a moment. “wrong” is a tricky word. What precisely defines “wrong” speech in this context? Offensive? If so, this is freely and openly admitted. Many people quite plainly state the infamous cartoons are offensive- but that we are free to offend. If not, where do we draw the line? In fact, many believe that there should be no line, that we should relish our freedom to offend in whatever means we wish. The danger is, ANY line is arbitrary. If the cartoons are “wrong” and in any way justify the reaction they provoked, then by extension we have embraced the idea of “Them’s Fightin’ Words”, the concept that yes, sometimes violence really is the right response to words.

If so, this certainly justifies the invasion of Iraq, becuase Saddam said so many offensive things, yes?

Or do we then create an Offensensitivity Scale somehow- is Chris Rock a 5? Maybe Flag Burning is 2? Koran flushing an 8.4? Publicly declaring God’s Intent to annihilate a people is what? 9 if you are Pat Robertson and 3 if you are an ayatollah?

Aye, there’s the rub- any such scale would seem to be based on not how offensive something is, but how offended the listener is. How do we accomodate the whole range? Do people who are offended by, let’s say, pigeons, have a right to a world without them?

Offensiveness is so mind numbingly subjective that it defies classification, and therefore, restriction. Consider 2 words- Shit, and Dung. Each 4 letters, each means EXACTLY the same thing. One is considered a “Bad” word. Why? It’s utterly and inscrutably subjective.

This is why the middle ground is such a treacherous place in this argument- we are not dealing with clearly damaging speech, like knowingly giving out false advice, we are dealing with damage that exists only to the extent that someone claims it does- and each acceptance of this standard only gives the offended party more incentive to make further claims.

Why? Because it’s power, and very, very few people shy away from using it. Tell someone that they have the power to restrict the speech of others at will, all they need to is round up an angry mob to demonstrate how severely they are offended, and this power will be used, and it will grow.

I like midde grounds. On many issues, I am a middle grounder. But here it is dangerous. Nothing is 100%, including the rule that there is always room for compromise. No matter how much a wolf and a sheep agree to compromise over the subject of dinner, it’s going to come out bad for the sheep.

Ben

I’m not a fan of surveys at the best of times. To either “support or have undertstanding” for something is a very broad term.

Nor am I a fan; however, that doesn’t mean that I will ignore them. While we could indeed argue about what it means to “understand” bombers, there is no doubt whatsoever about “supporting” bombers. It isn’t at all a very broad term. It is a very clear choice. Only a moral relativist claims that We could go on all day on this. In fact, there is nothing more to add. One who supports terrorism has unmistakenly chosen his position. Whether you like it or not (and I’m sure you don’t), there is no middle ground in those particular cases. There is hardly any “supporter” who changed his mind after a heartfelt discussion with a compassionate Westerner.

Anyway, back to the subject. You went to a manifestation supporting Denmark and got upset about the people who were not only supporting Denmark, but also criticizing the villains. Not all Muslims are villains and must be blamed for the cartoons rage, but in this case the ones to be blamed are Muslims. You simply can not take that fact out of the equation. During the cartoons rage some people did some things. You disagree with the “things” that happened, but you aren’t comfortable bringing up the “people” who did the “things”. Many in our “progressive” world are afraid to point out the villains because they are afraid they might stigmatize the entire group to which the villains belong. It is indeed wrong to throw them all together in the same pot, as it is wrong to avoid touchy subjects related to the villains.

I wonder if there will be any boorish free speech extremists there who will might cross the line and suggest that it is uncivilized to violently threaten people who speak their mind.

LOL. As one of the boorish free speech extremists who attended the rally, I have to disagree with some of PD Berger’s ‘final words’. The violent protests against the Danish cartoons were not an example of a “religion.. exploding with spiritual indignation”. It was an example of manufactured outrage, a well-coordinated political attack, organized by Islamist states like Iran and Saudi Arabia, in response to Europe’s refusal to honor Islamic sharia laws.

A few months before the politically manufactured outrage campaign began, an Egyptian newspaper published the cartoons in an attempt to create a spontaneous explosion of spiritual indignation. No explosion occurred. There is nothing spontaneous and very little that is genuinely spiritual about the Islamist-organized “Arab street.”

If politically-motivated Imams and their leaders are not there to coordinate outrage, buy the flags and signs, bring the matches for the McDonalds/KFC bonfires, the Arab street remains SpiritualIndignation-free.

We boorish free speech extremists were criticizing this politically manufactured campaign against the State of Denmark, just as other free-speech extremists defended Salman Rushdie during the Satanic Verses controversy.

Just in case the political motivations behind this “spiritual indignation” are not clear, there’s the fact that Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi, a Pakistani cleric, made an offer of $1 million to anybody who kills the cartoonists responsible for the drawings.

As Tim Cavanaugh of Reason Magazine says in his article “Just Say No To Muhammad’s Hit Men”

It’s unlikely Qureshi can get the financing for this worthy goal; it’s probable that he has not seen the cartoons that have enraged him; it’s almost certain that he isn’t even aware that the pictures were drawn by 12 artists, not just one; it’s beyond dispute that he’s got the ugliest beard on Allah’s green earth. And it’s all too easy to confuse this Qureshi, identified as the prayer leader at Peshawar’s Mohabat Khan mosque, with Haj Yaqoob Qureshi, the minister from the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh who is offering $11.5 million for the cartoonists’ heads. But with his cash offer, Qureshi cleared up vast fields of navel-gazing and bloviation. If you’re undecided on what the cartoon issue is really about, Qureshi has given the answer: It’s about people who believe you should commit murder over a difference of opinion. Everything else is just idle chatter.

The people who believe that one should commit murder over a difference of opinion are the terrorism we’re supposed to be fighting.

Boorish free speech extremists unite!

Englishman in NYC wrote an article for Metro New York, titled

“pcm. I thought the rally was to show solidarity with Denmark. If I had known it was to defend the right to offend Muslims I certainly would not have shown up.”

Defending the right to offend someone — that’s exactly what freedom of speech is about. If you don’t understand that, you’re right: you didn’t belong at that protest rally.

[...] My problem is perfectly encapsulated by Paul Berger who recently went on a pro-Denmark rally in New York. He quickly realised the undertones at the protest: I was there to show Danes that despite the embassy burnings and the product boycotts, despite the endless column inches of criticism and the tepid support of world leaders, I appreciated their commitment to freedom of religion and expression. Although the people around me doubtless agreed our views diverged from there. [...]

Hey Dude:
“Right-Wing nationalists” are in full agreement—-WITH YOU. David Duke went to Damascus and gave a speech no different than what you would hear at any anti-war march.
Same with any number of paleo-cons.
Neo-Cons are direct decendents of FDR liberals (back when the Dems were pro-American and anti-fascist, unlike today).
We are the REAL progressives!! Lets not forget left-wing Christopher Hitchens kicked off these pro-Denmark rallys.
We should not take credit for the bravery of our forebearers but we MUST take responsibilty for the defense of our liberties from attacks by the new fascists
(and the so-called left-wing progressives who love them and march beside them).

Yeah, FDR and yesterday’s progressives would have invaded and occupied a non-threatening nation in the name of liberty and democracy, and then….and then… lie about the reasons for the war ALL OF THIS after being attacked by a terrorist organization.

Oh…and destroy Social Welfare while letting your Saudi buddies fund the terrorist that attacked us on 9-11.

That is soooooo FDR.

You right-wing nationalists are cowards and boot-lickers.

During FDR’s era and today.

Germany did not attack us yet FDR progressives invaded and occupied that nation in the name of liberty and democracy and the children of Nazis thank us for it.

People to this day think FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor and lied about it. (Back then Republicans did not try to impeach a wartime President for it).

As for Saudi Arabia, how much money did we give Uncle Joe Stalin and how many photos ops did he get with FDR, Chruchill, and Truman? As bad as the Saudi’s are (and they are bad) they do not approach Stalin’s crimes and he was our best friend.

So yes, that IS soooooo FDR. Even a casual reader of high school history knows this stuff but all means try again sometime.

rob,

You can’t throw Muslims and activist in concentration camps, because the descendants of FDR will not let you.

The lesson has been lost on today’s right-wing nationalists.

The right is incapable of learning from history.

We got the rightwing version of LBJ trying to win Vietnam and he will lose, again.

Anyone want to bet that “NeoDude” thinks there is a difference between National Socialism and International Socialism?

Tim:

You are absolutely correct about the craven US media being no better than media in Europe who refused to show the cartoons.

Germany did declare war on the US and the US was still officially in a state of war with Iraq, especially when they were firing on our aircraft on patrol over the UN sanctioned no-fly zone.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION rally in Trafalgar Square. The fascists can try to threaten us and the left can undermine us but we will not go quietly into that good night.
FREE SPEECH……………USE IT OR LOSE IT.